Google (NASDAQ: GOOGL) is engaged in practices which are harmful, and possibly illegal. Google is using algorithms to cover up frauds (for a fee?) and to manipulate and modify public opinion, with the end goal being manufactured consent.
The US Military outlined in their doctrine a goal of "Full Spectrum Dominance" that means totally controlling the online battlefield, i.e. Cyberspace. From Wikipedia:
The United States Department of Defense defines "full-spectrum superiority" as:
- The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains and information environment, which includes cyberspace, that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference.[1]
The United States military's doctrine has espoused a strategic intent to be capable of achieving this state in a conflict, either alone or with allies,[2] by defeating any adversary and controlling any situation across the range of military operations.
The stated intent implies significant investment in a range of capabilities: dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection.
-
"Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (JP 3-0) page 96" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 March 2010. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
-
Google is a search engine Monopoly, it has even become a verb - when you want to know something you "Google" it.
Global Intel Hub has been exclusively covering one of the largest frauds in current events, that of the Lab Corp fake paternity testing frauds, enabling fake dads to be on the chain to pay the "Moms" child support until they turn 18; skipping payments is punishable by jail in some states (NJ for example). Here are some of the articles:
How the Elite create fake tests to control society with manufactured results – LabCorp
LH LabCorp again involved in massive DNA and paternity fraud
Our parent company, Crediblock.com is primarily an internet advertising agency and development shop, which engages in DevOps and a number of technical businesses. As such, we are a Google Advertiser AND Publisher. As a Publisher, we earn revenue primarily on this site GlobalIntelHub.com and have been flagged with 'harmful content' due to the LabCorp article:
Google's likely AI bot is gravely mistaken, because the details of the case are that LabCorp is engaged in a harmful fraud involving testing of biological samples. The damages caused by this fraud are widespread and difficult to calculate precisely, but they are harmful to the public at large, not only the 'fake dads' who are victimized by this fraud. The case can potentially liberate thousands of victims. The children living the lie are another matter, more difficult to quantify because it's priceless - what is the cost of knowing your dad is not your dad? (For context, courts will often try to quantify damages in economic terms, because punishment is usually monetary).
Google has stopped serving ads on this page. We don't need the revenue, but it's not about that. We are trying to raise awareness for a good cause - thousands of dads and perhaps hundreds of thousands of children are suffering because of LabCorp's faulty tests. Google guarantees that this will never go 'viral' because the page and site is blacklisted, that means:
- It will NEVER appear in search results
- We cannot promote it using Google Ads (it would be declined)
- When emailing the link it will go to Junk
- Blacklist data may be shared with Twitter, Linked In - making it impossible to post on Social Media
- Apple may block sending the article via SMS (we have evidence of this)
- ... etc.
By maintaining global blacklists, Google makes it impossible for any entity to gain mass awareness for any issue they deem.
For the sake of objectivity, let's look at the Ukraine policy of Google they have in the header:
Isn't it the mainstream media that exploits, and condones the war? Google is blocking anti-war activists, while promoting mainstream articles "NATO to Nuke Russia" by CNN, Reuters, AP, et al.
One scientist has researched this regarding election interference, and he is fairly credentialed.
Robert Epstein, Ph.D., former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. A Ph.D. of Harvard University, he has published 15 books and more than 300 articles on AI and other topics. His 2019 Congressional testimony on Big Tech’s threat to democracy can be accessed at EpsteinTestimony.com. You can learn more about his research on online influence at MyGoogleResearch.com.
From Disruptive Fare: (re Published from Epoch Times)
When we used similar methods to monitor content being sent by tech companies to voters before the 2020 presidential election, we found that Google was sending fewer go-vote reminders to conservatives than to moderates and liberals. Targeted messaging of this sort is a blatant manipulation that can, on Election Day in a national election in the United States, generate 450,000 extra votes for the favored candidate. In 2020, we reported our findings to members of Congress, and on Nov. 5, 2020, three U.S. senators sent an intimidating letter (pdf) to the CEO of Google that summarized our data. As a result, Google turned off its manipulations. In the Georgia Senate runoffs that followed the presidential election, no one received a go-vote reminder from Google.
This issue with Google appears to be widespread. Read the book "When Google met Wikileaks" for a good read on how Google is the first "Boots on the Ground" during any conflict.
Of course, one needs to only look at the origins of Google to see that Google is a surveillance platform first, and a tool to control information second (manufacturing dissent), and an advertising platform third. From QZ:
MDDS was introduced to several dozen leading computer scientists at Stanford, CalTech, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, and others in a white paper that described what the CIA, NSA, DARPA, and other agencies hoped to achieve. The research would largely be funded and managed by unclassified science agencies like NSF, which would allow the architecture to be scaled up in the private sector if it managed to achieve what the intelligence community hoped for. “Not only are activities becoming more complex, but changing demands require that the IC [Intelligence Community] process different types as well as larger volumes of data,” the intelligence community said in its 1993 MDDS white paper. “Consequently, the IC is taking a proactive role in stimulating research in the efficient management of massive databases and ensuring that IC requirements can be incorporated or adapted into commercial products. Because the challenges are not unique to any one agency, the Community Management Staff (CMS) has commissioned a Massive Digital Data Systems [MDDS] Working Group to address the needs and to identify and evaluate possible solutions.” Over the next few years, the program’s stated aim was to provide more than a dozen grants of several million dollars each to advance this research concept. The grants were to be directed largely through the NSF so that the most promising, successful efforts could be captured as intellectual property and form the basis of companies attracting investments from Silicon Valley.
Just like with Bitcoin, it all started with a whitepaper. The past can tell us about the present. Around the same time, realizing the importance of startups and Silicon Valley would play in the IC community, the CIA launched InQTel, which is not so different than any other VC firm with one obvious exception - it's owned by the Government. From it's website https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/
The Beginning - In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999 as the global technological evolution is underway… the internet is widely available, mobile applications are launching, and the digital revolution has arrived. The CIA and government agencies, once innovation leaders, recognized they were missing out on the cutting-edge, innovative, and impactful technologies coming out of Silicon Valley and beyond. Combining the security savvy of government with the can-do curiosity of Silicon Valley, In-Q-Tel is born.
When you visit the website they explain the hows and the whys. They say that startups can grow better than the government could grow by themselves, business leaders understand market challenges. Then, once they are on their feet, they are better suited to provide information to the government - but this is a 2 way street. Google is not only a surveillance operation, it's using information to mold behavior, or 'behavior modification.'
So what are the takeaways? Is Google involved in illegal practices?
- Domestic spying
- Anti-competitive behavior
- Not a registered Media company (such as the TV networks are) FTC issues?
- Promoting false and harmful information to consumers?
It is more subtle than what Twitter was doing because it's less obvious. You don't see what Google is displaying to your friend. You don't see the data they collect and/or how they use it. But similar to Twitter, Google claims to be 'protecting consumers' from false and misleading info, while allowing major clients to promote their own scams i.e. LabCorp or if you want FTX. Google is an enabler of scams, hiding the smoking gun evidence, as laid out clearly in this article. The case against LabCorp is solid, LabCorp is guilty of defrauding the US Government as well as consumers, by providing (and knowing) fake paternity tests. Isn't that itself 'harmful'?
Or maybe this is all just due to a Google faulty AI software that needs an update. But we aren't holding our breath for a fix, as this is a global, widespread phenomenon. But, readers wouldn't know about the problem would they because Google and kill the search results to find it! What a business.
References
https://disruptivefare.com/categories/not-politics/447-how-google-stopped-the-red-wave
julian-assange-when-google-met-wikileaks
Intelligence Community Massive Digital Data Systems Initiative (White Paper brainstorming the need for Google - 1994)
AdSense Program policies - Google AdSense Help (11 / 28 / 2022 AdSense policies)
